Culture in Communication

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

184 JOCHEN REHBEIN

In (77) the connective “but” is once again used to introduce the more

precise details, namely the improvement of the offer. This “but” is a transfer

from German, since it refers to the speaker’s objections and not to an explicitly

stated proposition which is to be negated (as the English usage of “but” would

imply).

Summarising, one might say that the ‘negotiation’ auxiliary device leads

to a one-sided compromise in favour of the American seller. Passmann sub-

mits in a quasi-voluntary manner to her demands by acting out two roles in his

“inner discourse” in which he puts forward both his own arguments and those

of the American. One could therefore call the submission a self-adaptation

through argument.

4.3 Membership categorization device and hedging

This section will examine the means employed by the American authoress.

Strothers’ argumentation serves the purpose of a very complex mechanism of

membership categorization. This is the basic intercultural procedure of her

verbal communication.

She starts with a metaphor: “whether it’s [: “financing of the book”]

feasible from our side of the fence, too.” (segment 12). The wording is

impersonal and is to be seen as a polite construction. The metaphor is,

however, embedded in the personal matrix construction “we have to know”.

Passmann’s first offer is rejected in the following way:

(4)

(20) P ((5s)) Does that grab you?

(21) S Ah ((chuckles)) it grabs me, but probably not in the way you’d

like for it to.

(23) E from:, f/ from: my experience at least, y’know, the idea

of. first/

not getting royalty from the very first copy. is a brand

new one.

(27) . Because that, that is just . one of those givens, y’know, that,

that royalties start . when the first copy is sold

(30) if you go to that level of effort to produce something . of this quality,

the payoff should at least be there.

(34) Ahm especially if the work’s been done well and the market’s

already been established.

(38) So

I think that’s, that’s certainly the first issue . that would need

to be addressed.

(41) Ahm the other thing is if you’re talking about ten percent royalty

to be divided between two people, . . that seems::on the low side

185

NTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION

The proposition “not getting royalty from the very first copy” (23) proceeds

through various stages of evaluation by the American; she attributes her

surprise at the idea to her own “experience at least” (23), which only superfi-

cially appears to relativize the characterisation of the proposition as a “brand

new one”, since “brand new” stands for the label “not customary practice”.

Basically she takes her experiences as deriving from a standard (“those

givens”, 27) which she presupposes to be of ubiquitous validity. The words

“something of this quality” (30) also show that it is her assumption that her

work deserves the royalties requested. Her final argument (segment 41) closes

with the words “that seems on the low side”. The impersonal construction is

metaphoric but the expressed evaluation all the stronger for it.

During this contribution a contrast is constructed between a standard that

transcends individuals and the German’s offer, which seems totally inad-

equate by comparison. Not one of the utterances in this turn, despite the strong

evaluations they make, expresses a speaker-oriented and subjective assess-

ment. The speaker claims instead to be using a generalised standard of

evaluation. In the context of intercultural discourse — such is the inference —

the speaker is a self-appointed spokeswoman for the American standard of

evaluation, a standard she chooses to apply to both herself and her German

listener. This high standard, and by implication her own achievement, are, as it

were, done an outrageous injustice by the low offer (“on the low side”). In this

manner she labels Passmann as a member of an uninitiated group and she

herself as belonging to the group that satisfies the standard. In so doing she is

using a procedure that Sacks has called a “membership categorization device”

(Sacks 1972). Here categorization is mainly achieved through presupposi-

tions.

Strothers also rejects Mr. Passmann’s second offer, even forcing him to

stop altogether:

(5)

(55) P Ahm…

(56) S Well, I think, as you said. Right at the beginning of our

conversation., this is obviously information-gathering on,

. on both sides.

(62) ((2s)) But I do think part of the information has to be:

. .

at least a realistic framework ((chuckles)) to know where

we’re góing tò.

(68) and so I think that’s, that’s one of the things that would . Ahm .

At least need to be framed in a little bit for us to, to know whether

that next step . will be taken or not.

186 JOCHEN REHBEIN

In this segment a state of tension exists between the matrix constructions

(hedgings) and the propositional contents; in the underlined part of segment

(56) the speaker’s use of “I think” and the hearer deixis “you” serve to firmly

anchor the proposition in the joint speech situation and, with her use of

“obviously” and “on both sides”, she applies the generalised standard men-

tioned already to the propositional content. In segment (62) we find a similar

structure: the “but” negates the immediately preceding presupposition,

namely that “information gathering” has taken part “on both sides” and

although the phrase “I do think” anchors the utterance in the speech situation

and characterizes what follows as a subjective opinion, she nonetheless re-

peats her categorization of herself as a member of the community of standard

upholders. The standard itself is worded as such in the propositional content

(“has to be realistic framework”), which is mitigated by the “at least”. We thus

see a contrast between a subjective and situational pointillism and the setting

of a standard, which appears all the more incontrovertible because the German

negotiator does not know it. It is a membership categorization of her own

subjectivity according to the standard and at the same time an exclusion of the

German co-actor from membership.

Finally the American’s L-1 mastery of English, as opposed to the

German’s L-2 competence, serves as a membership categorization device, a

circumstance which both actors are doubtless always aware of.

Only when Passmann has granted all her demands does she say with a grin:

(6)

(80) S [That’s at least getting a little more realistic.] [chuckles

(81) P Okay, fine.

(82) ((laughs))

As she accepts Passmann’s offer, his utterance (“that”) is portrayed as one that

has finally achieved the standard (“realistic”), in other words an appropriate

balance between price and product. Passmann is thus admitted to membership

of the group of standard possessors (which obviously pleases him) and the relief,

an effect of the auxiliary device, has led him to relinquish his own position in

exchange for his new membership of the club of American market standards.

4.4 Intercultural deference

Intercultural aspects are to be found in the manner of linguistic framing to

which the positive (accepting) or negative (rejecting) propositional contents of

187

NTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION

the utterances are subjected and in the differences in the use of connectives to

link the propositional contents to form an argument. In addition there is the

interactive processing of operative procedures of the syntactic constructions.

On the American side, the following characteristics of intercultural com-

munication may be noted:

– anchoring in the speech situation: own position

– syntactic construction: goal-directed speaking

– claiming a standard (a generalised standard)

– membership categorization of one’s own position according to the stan-

dard speaks as representative of the North American standard

– excludes the opposite party from the standard until said party submits to

her own needs

– speech mode of generalisations when embedding the propositional con-

tent

– connectives used in linear manner.

On the German side the following characteristics of intercultural communica-

tion may be noted:

– anchoring in the speech situation: own position taken as absolute

– “inner dialogue” in which the legitimacy of the opposite position is

recognized

– applicational speech mode (partitioning as far as single phrases), speaks

as representative of an institution (publishing agent)

– syntactic construction: parenthetic words addressed to hearer, to which

the negative propositional content is submitted

– connectives: pseudo-rejection, from which the full concession is pro-

cessed.

With reference to Fant’s work (1989, 1992), it should be noted that one of the

major intercultural differences in the present case is the way in which the

conflict is handled. There is no really satisfactory explanation of why the

German publishers’ agent gives in so rapidly and finally satisfies all of the

American authoress’s demands. The American authoress for her part insists

stubbornly and purposefully on her needs. One comes closer to an explanation

when one takes into account the fact that the German agent’s turns can be

divided into two parts; in the first the American’s demands are checked and

rejected in a kind of conditioned reflex. However, as the present analysis

shows, this is only a pseudo-rejection. In the subsequent second part, despite

188 JOCHEN REHBEIN

rejection, the concessions are made one at a time. By virtue of the fact that

Passmann uses no connectives when passing from one proposition to its

opposite, one may reasonably conclude that he had calculated on making the

concessions right from the start and that the first part of each of his turns is

only a preparation for granting the royalties, which are conceded bit by bit up

to the full amount. Whereas the German actor processes the gradual move-

ment towards the needs of his co-actor that is characteristic of the auxiliary

device, the American woman simply perseveres in maintaining one position in

the pattern. This all leads the reader to a surprising conclusion, in which all the

other results of the analysis converge: only the German actor uses the “nego-

tiation” auxiliary device, while the American never really enters into it; she

never negotiates. The American plays her part through complex checking

processes which are apparent in the constructions. Whereas the American

never modifies her position but only repeats the one offer (to deliver the

manuscript for a pre-determined royalty), the German undertakes three unilat-

eral runs through the device. I term this type of communicative processing of a

pattern and an auxiliary device ‘virtual processing’.

What causes the German actor to have so little readiness to act out the real

conflicts? Why does he strive so hard for harmony? One cannot of course rule

out the possibility that the German agent, with the permission of his company,

was prepared to make any concessions in the hope of gaining a foothold in the

English language market with the manuscript. However, a different explana-

tion can be found in an idea of Gramsci: when the German actor submits a

priori to the demands of the co-actor, he seems to be practising “cultural

hegemony” of a North American standard (see Gramsci 1983), thus entering

into a frequent German-American intercultural relationship. In this sense

Passmann’s virtual processing is guided by a conception, or rather by a system

of conceptions, which, from a discourse analysis viewpoint, is to be consid-

ered part of the German ‘cultural apparatus’

with respect to the USA and

which flows into his mental processing of the pattern. Passmann, with his

communicative actions governed by his concepts, may be said to be acting at

an intercultural level. The resulting mode of his action and speech may be

summarized by a notion taken from the domain of politeness: intercultural

deference. (The deference is emphatically supported by his trunk behaviour).

By contrast, the goal-directed insistence of Strothers and her non-stop perse-

verance with a single position in the pattern is unlikely to be a tactic adopted

189

NTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION

especially for the German interaction partner and based on special concep-

tions about Germany. Therefore no intercultural communication is being

practised on her part.

Nevertheless, her actions are culturally performed. Let us now examine

whether or not the actors’ non-verbal communication supports the above

analysis of verbal communication.

5. Non-verbal communication in negotiating

5.1 An outline of different types of non-verbal communication

Non-verbal communication differs from verbal communication in both system

and function. The first distinction to be made is between independent and

concomitant non-verbal communication.

Whereas independent non-verbal communication has a quality all of its

own and thus requires analysis as a discrete unit of action, the concomitant

form of non-verbal communication is not seen without a verbal act to which it

is functionally related. In this category we can make a distinction between

neutral concomitant non-verbal communication, which is the usual (standard-

ized and communicatively expected) accompaniment to verbalization (such as

turning one’s head to the hearer when speaking)

and self-evident concomi-

tant non-verbal communication. The self-evident concomitant type of non-

verbal communication takes on a meaning of its own, in relation to and as a

complement of the verbal action (example: shaking one’s head while saying

“no”).

Where the non-verbal form becomes detached from verbal communica-

tion, the former is said to be independent; here, too, we can distinguish

between presentational non-verbal communication (pointing without speak-

ing as a reply to the question “where?” — in conjunction with the word

“there” pointing would be an example of self-evident concomitant non-verbal

communication) and ostensive non-verbal communication, which is a hyper-

bolic form (e.g. slamming the door (with rage)).

These differences are summarized in a chart:

190 JOCHEN REHBEIN

non-verbal communication

concomitant independent

neutral self-evident presentational ostensive

Figure 1. from Ehlich & Rehbein (1982: 10)

Let us examine the consequences these differences have for the analysis of

certain aspects of intercultural communication. The numbers refer to the score

areas of the transcript.

5.2 Sectional cesura in the discourse

In score areas [3/4] Strother’s non-verbal utterances reveal the switch from

agreement and acceptance to a backward-looking orientation for the prepara-

tion of a demand in reply to the buyer’s offer.

Initially [5–7], after she has voiced her demand, she lowers her head to face

Passmann and shows him a friendly expectant smile; this then fades to a lengthy

gaze [7/8]. During the first part of her utterance (10) Passmann chuckles but his

expression changes immediately she verbalises the “royalties” topic.

5.3 Passmann’s first bid

If we look at Passmann’s facial expressions during the verbalization of his first

bid (segments (17)–(20)), we see a complex non-verbal procedure: upcast

eyes, then closing of the eyelids, leaning the head back, then lowering it and

opening the mouth to say something with a simultaneous opening of the hands

(score areas [11–18]).

During Passmann’s long speaking turn (area [7–18]), the only verbal

hearer action of Strothers is “Hm” [9]. Her facial expression and gestures then

alter completely as if she is announcing the termination of the whole negotia-

tion (although she laughs with Passmann in score areas [18/19]), while she

appears to be keeping her temper with great difficulty in order to present her

arguments. At this point her facial expression and gestures switch from

concomitant neutral hearer action to concomitant-self-evident hearer action.

191

NTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION

5.4 Strothers’ demand for a modification of the bid

Her arguments, presented with a sparing use of facial expression, gestures

(initially speaking very fast and forcefully, indicating annoyance) and gaze

signal a communicational “stand-by”. The very fact that they are used spar-

ingly reveals the function of expression and gesture here. Her expression

becomes one of “lying in wait”. Through the hearer-control of the communi-

cative apparatus the illocution of her verbal actions turns into threat. The non-

rising intonation of her hearer-signals indicates non-acceptance to Passmann

(in score areas [21,22, 25]).

After Strothers has repeated her demand (which does mean non-accep-

tance of Passmann’s first offer) (score areas [19–29]), as hearer of Passmann’s

turn (in score areas [29–47]) she then undertakes speaker-control by facing

Passmann and omitting any expression; this means zero realization of any

hearer signals: the continuing omission of the hearer’s (i.e. Strothers’) facial

expression and gesture of a long stretch of the speaker’s discourse may be

interpreted as a threat to Passmann, the speaker, or at the very least an attempt

to intimidate. Functionally speaking, facial expression as a form of speaker-

control switches to presentational non-verbal communication.

Again, she makes very few verbal hearer utterances: 4 interjections over

a long stretch of discourse of 18 score areas (segments (45), (46). (49) and (53)

in score areas [28–45]). Strothers’ short reaction (an affirmative “hmhm” with

a confirmatory nod in score area [38]) shows that she has registered his efforts

at model behaviour, but that it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

That Strothers is still not prepared to accept is revealed by her rapid and

irritated speech in reply.

5.5 Rejection of the modified offer by pointing to the standard ”realistic

framework”

A change in the function of nonverbal communication on the part of Strothers

occurs, especially in score areas [47–51] from concomitant (presentational)

nonverbal communication to nonverbal communication. This change works

(at least partly) independently of the verbal line of action and through different

channels (eye, hand, trunk, head; multichannel communication). It is the

decisive moment in Strothers’ presentation.

Passmann’s offer is rejected; the rejection is a threat to cancel the agree-

192 JOCHEN REHBEIN

ment reached thus far and to break off negotiations altogether. The gestures in

score areas [49–51] make it quite clear that for Strothers there are “no holds

barred” on the way to making the negotiating partner pliable.

Passmann’s verbal hearer actions are affirmative and, in quantitative

respects, are decidedly different from those of Strothers: in 6 score areas [46–

51], he manifests 15 affirmative interjections (“hm”, “yep”) signalling the

adoption of her argument.

Strothers continues to steer Passmann’s new offer by means of a perma-

nent stare at him (from score area [51] onwards), with a slight nodding

movement meaning approval (up to score area [57]).

Then (score areas [57/58]) she slowly breaks into a smile; she switches

from the threat of terminating the communication to the re-establishment of

common ground and a correspondingly happy smile from him. From the

phenomenological point of view, the difference between the incipient smile

and the relieved laugh is interesting.

5.6 Movement

Compared with the American, the German moves his upper body in exagger-

ated fashion. There is also a distinction between his non-verbal communica-

tion when speaking and when listening. When speaking, he often leans his

upper body forwards, so that his head lies along an upward pointing axis with

her head. At the same time he fidgets around with three different objects; with

a biro, with his pipe, which he picks up from the table and puts back on

another spot of the table when speaking and smokes when listening, and with

his papers. Whereas the latter supports the above analysis of speech formed by

applying texts, fingering the objects shows a certain degree of helplessness.

His listening is often accompanied by movement away from her, either

sideways or backwards. To summarize, he occupies a lot of space with the

movements of his upper body around vertical and lateral axes and frequently

changes the distance between himself and the American; it most probably

confirms an analysis showing a rapid progression from one pattern position to

another in the communicative deep structure.

Strothers, by contrast with her German interlocutor, needs little space in

which to gesture. Particularly in the way she moves hands and arms she

reveals — as the negotiation progresses — two types of reception: at first

there is attentive listening, during which she rests her chin on her folded

193

NTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION

hands, elbows on the table [area 8-15]. However, when the first refusal is

voiced by Passmann, she slowly takes her hands from under her chin and

places them in front of her on the table top, where they lie motionless [area 15-

28]. This gesture, which is probably best interpreted as a rejectionist act on the

part of the hearer remains unaltered until [area 61] balance is restored; only

then does she move her folded hands back towards her chin, probably a signal

that she is ready to cooperate. Even when she takes the speaker’s role, her

hands remain folded on the table in front of her, only for emphasis and when

dealing with important subjects does she cock the fingers of one closed hand

in Passmann’s direction.

6. Communicative apparatus, non-verbal communication,

intercultural communication

In a discourse the speaker continuously checks the hearer’s reception of his or

her speech actions and carries out additional processing during the utterance.

Conversely, the hearer continually steers the speaker’s speech actions (see

Rehbein 1977). As mentioned at the outset, Functional Pragmatics (which is

based on the linguistic concept of the difference between speaker and hearer)

uses the term “communicative apparatus” to embrace the mutual controls

exercised by speaker and hearer (see Rehbein 1979). A major purpose of this

apparatus is to synchronise the speech actions of the parties, to relate the

mental dimensions of speaker and hearer to each other and thereby to adjust

the discourse to the current status of interaction, the mental processes and the

actions of the participants. As apparatus it represents one order of mediation in

a complex communicative area of purpose. It is essential for its use that

speaker and hearer are co-present in one action space (when producing a

written text an author cannot therefore rely on this apparatus). The communi-

cative apparatus is a different category of communicative action from speech

patterns. Both categories are, as it were, crosswise to each other.

The communicative apparatus is a mechanism that organises specific

communicative means for the purposes of speaker-hearer control and places

them in a systematic relationship. The means are selected according to their

formal quality so that they permit the hearer to intervene directly during the

speech of the speaker without interrupting him or her and permit the speaker to

influence the hearer directly as he or she speaks, without breaking off the

utterance.